wps_ppt_get_slide_count

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, it fails to state that the count refers to the active presentation, which is a meaningful behavioral assumption for a zero-parameter tool. No additional behavioral context such as output shape or target scope is provided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise: a one-sentence definition followed by three illustrative use cases. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or repetition of schema/annotation information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter, read-only count tool, the description covers the intent well. The main gap is that it does not explicitly identify the target as the active/open presentation, which is important since no parameter allows selecting one. Otherwise, the definition is adequate for a simple operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing the description needs to add about parameter meaning. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: "获取演示文稿中的幻灯片总数" (get the total number of slides in the presentation). This unambiguously separates it from sibling tools like wps_ppt_get_slide_info, wps_ppt_get_slide_title, and wps_ppt_get_slide_notes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lists concrete user-phrasing examples such as "一共有多少页幻灯片" and "PPT有几页", which clearly indicate the intended use cases. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a simple count query the guidance is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.